↓ Skip to main content

Direct fitness benefits explain mate preference, but not choice, for similarity in heterozygosity levels

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Direct fitness benefits explain mate preference, but not choice, for similarity in heterozygosity levels
Published in
Ecology Letters, September 2017
DOI 10.1111/ele.12827
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lies Zandberg, Gerrit Gort, Kees van Oers, Camilla A. Hinde

Abstract

Under sexual selection, mate preferences can evolve for traits advertising fitness benefits. Observed mating patterns (mate choice) are often assumed to represent preference, even though they result from the interaction between preference, sampling strategy and environmental factors. Correlating fitness with mate choice instead of preference will therefore lead to confounded conclusions about the role of preference in sexual selection. Here we show that direct fitness benefits underlie mate preferences for genetic characteristics in a unique experiment on wild great tits. In repeated mate preference tests, both sexes preferred mates that had similar heterozygosity levels to themselves, and not those with which they would optimise offspring heterozygosity. In a subsequent field experiment where we cross fostered offspring, foster parents with more similar heterozygosity levels had higher reproductive success, despite the absence of assortative mating patterns. These results support the idea that selection for preference persists despite constraints on mate choice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 22%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 56%
Environmental Science 5 7%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2021.
All research outputs
#6,598,131
of 24,561,012 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#2,180
of 3,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,335
of 320,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#31
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,561,012 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.